Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward Kriewall, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Tonni Bartholomew requested that they add Pending Litigation under Item 9, Executive Session

Nay: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Virgil Jackson - stated he has owned the radiator shop on Novi Road and Pleasant Cove Drive for thirty-nine years. Mr. Jackson reported his business was almost completely shut down when they closed Novi Road in early September through November. He stated he is looking for some kind of relief from the City, County, or the State.

Mayor McLallen advised she spoke with Mr. Jackson and reported that his first avenue of relief is through the local tax Board of Review in March.

Mr. Jackson stated he spoke with Mr. Babinchak who told him to come before Council to come up with other ideas. Mayor McLallen replied that they will talk with the City’s attorney about this matter.

John Cooper - Attorney, stated his law office is appearing for Ed and Ken Zeer who own property on the east side of Novi Road that will be affected by Zoning Map Amendment 18.598. Mr. Cooper reported his clients have owned the property since 1987 when it was zoned B-3. Mr. Cooper explained the Zeer’s have always intended to develop it as a B-3 zoned property and have submitted a site plan. They feel that changing the zoning is unfair after they have relied on the current zoning for so long. Further, they are unable to see how they would meet the public health, safety and welfare standard objectives with this rezoning.

Jim Korte - Shawood Lake, stated he understood that they would postpone the Erma Street Vacation item this evening? Mayor McLallen replied that is also her understanding.

Mr. Korte then moved onto the rezoning issue by first distributing maps to Council members and stated that the map is color coded to depict ownership. Mr. Korte then explained the map configuration and history to Council. He reported the value of the property is $14,000. He said if it was valuable land, they would have already commercially developed it. Mr. Korte believes residential is the only zoning that makes sense for this area.

Sarah Gray - President, SES Homeowner’s Association, reported there is an ordinance that requires a 200 foot set back from residential for any commercial property. She stated none of the properties on Novi Road that are currently zoned commercial and adjacent to residential on either the east or west side of the road can meet these setback requirements. Ms. Gray reported SES supports the City initiated rezoning for all the reasons currently on the record.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin stated Mr. Watson advised City Council on December 2 that they were violating the Open Meetings Act due to secret ballots in selecting a new City Council member. Ms. Gray asked why didn’t Mr. Watson advise them that they were violating the Open Meetings Act and the City Charter? Ms. Gray reported the City Charter states all City Council regular and special meetings shall be open to the public and citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Since January 1, 1996, Ms. Gray is aware of twenty-eight special meetings that did not have an audience participation scheduled. She attended the October 7 meeting with Parks and Recreation and there was no audience participation scheduled. Ms. Gray stated the residents who elect the Council and Mayor are outraged because they are constantly forced to police them and remind them of the Charter that they swore to uphold. Ms. Gray asked Council to rescind the most recent appointment of Mr. Kramer.

Roger Jacob - disagrees with Mr. Korte about the possible rezoning. Mr. Jacob reported that he owns the property on the southwest corner of Novi Road and Erma Street. He stated he has written Council Members twice and he would now like to express himself in person. Mr. Jacob stated he objects to the rezoning because the size of his parcel makes it attractive for a smaller type of business. He is not looking for a McDonald’s because he realizes what the setbacks are. However, he is looking for a business that will enhance the existing adjacent commercial businesses and serve the residents well. He believes there would be inadequate separation between the businesses and residential if they rezoned it. Mr. Jacob suggested a more appropriate zoning would be B-2.

Ruth Hamilton - 1245 East Lake Drive, stated as suggested in last week’s editorial of the Novi News, the Mayor and some Council Members have gone overboard. Further, whether Mr. Kramer is a good choice for the vacant council seat is irrelevant. At this point, Council should rescind their latest appointment based upon a violation of the Open Meetings Act and Section 64 of the City Charter. Ms. Hamilton reiterated the violations made by City Council during the past year. Further, Ms. Hamilton believed they would discuss the appointment openly in Council Chambers at the regular meeting. Ms. Hamilton believes the only responsible thing to do would be to rescind the appointment and schedule a special election.

LaReta Roder - Novi Heights Subdivision, stated she attended both meetings to consider the appointment for Nancy Cassis’ seat and she is before Council to ask them to rescind the appointment for the following reasons: they called a special council meeting Friday, November 22 for Monday, November 25 and it was too late to be publicized. Further, they held it in the Parks & Recreation Activities Room with no microphones, no cable cast and the City’s attorney was absent. In addition, the secret ballots were destroyed and Council directed that the three names considered not be divulged which was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Because Council then recessed the meeting, they did not need to advertise a new meeting, which meant they would not inform the general public and they also scheduled this meeting in the activities room. Ms. Roder reported the City’s attorney advised Council at the December 2 meeting that they had violated the Open Meetings Act and the results from the first meeting had to be thrown out. Instead, Ms. Roder reported Council picked up where they left off and again, they did not schedule Audience Participation. However, a persistent resident insisted on speaking and the audience was allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Further, at the regular December 2 meeting, the appointment to replace Member Cassis’ was added to the agenda. The public was left with the impression that they would not have a say in whom now represents them. Ms. Roder asked Council to rescind this appointment and begin the process appropriately.

Glen Bonaventura - stated a violation of the Open Meetings Act flawed the latest appointment process and he repeated the violations stated by other residents. Mr. Bonaventura reported he had to interrupt the meeting to request an audience participation. Mr. Bonaventura asked that the appointment be rescinded and further requested that a Council Member add it to Issues for Mayor and Council. Mr. Bonaventura reported he has several questions about the new appointment. He asked why wasn’t Mr. Kramer reappointed to the Planning Commission? Mr. Bonaventura is concerned when politicians abuse their power and when violations of City Charter and the State’s Open Meetings Act are made and not corrected. He would like to see these concerns addressed tonight. He thanked Members Clark and Schmid for taking a stand for the rights of the citizens of Novi.

Warren Jocz - 40755 Ten Mile Road, said the governing body seems to be struggling with the philosophical difference about how to govern. He explained Council has endorsed, funded and holds positions on the Novi 20/20 Steering Committee. Mr. Jocz stated this committee’s mission statement is to bring a diverse group of Novi residents, business owners and community leaders together in the hope of realizing a positive direction that will take them into the year 2020. Further, Novi’s 20/20 is a personal invitation to participate and contribute to the community. To Mr. Jocz, this is an aggressive public solicitation for resident assistance in providing leadership direction. However, they all realize that actions speak louder than words and asked if they expect a governing body that supports and promotes activities such as Novi’s 20/20 to exclude residents from participating in a selection of their community leaders? Mr. Jocz believes they would not, but this is exactly what Council has done because they have made a conscientious and collective decision to silence resident input by holding meetings without audience participation and having secret ballots. Mr. Jocz finds the apparent lack of understanding for the appointment under the City’s Charter equally disappointing. Further, this vacancy did not come about as a surprise and he believes the City should have begun efforts to research and clarify the City Charter options. He further believes the process should have been simple and familiar. Mr. Jocz stated if Administration truly wants residents’ input, there should have been an effort to seek ways to exercise alternative selection processes. Opening meetings for public discussion would have been the logical starting point. Finally, Council deemed the estimated cost for an election too extreme, but Mr. Jocz asked if they put any taxpayer input into this decision?

Chuck Young - stated the public has to be sold on a concept. For example, the developer for the Kroger stores at Ten and Beck and Eight and Beck will be before Council soon and Mr. Young believes they should solicit public input. Mr. Young believes Council needs to work with the people that elect them and not act behind closed doors.

Loretta Szur - 51000 Nine Mile Road, stated she is an active member of SWAN and is before Council to express her concerns about the secret balloting during the appointment of the new Council member. It seems to Ms. Szur when information is withheld, it does not reflect well on the Council or the people they serve. She believes secret activities only create distrust and undermines the integrity of the elected officials. She asked Council to stop such procedures so they can move forward with making Novi a better place.

Chuck Tindall - 2453 Shawood, reminded Council he had a petition opposing the golf course at the tree farm and reported he spent the last two weekends at the tree farm collecting signatures. He complimented the City’s employees for the fine job they have done at the tree farm while it was open for Christmas tree sales. Mr. Tindall said they also decided to poll nonresidents. He reported 226 residents were opposed to the golf course plan of which 191 were Novi residents. Mr. Tindall concluded by stating he has a total of 726 Novi resident signatures who oppose the golf course.

Kent Poll - 613 South Lake Drive, L.A.R.A President, reiterated their support for Item 7, Lake Property Clean-up. Mr. Poll also thanked Councilman Mitzel for his support. Mr. Poll reported he spent two hours at the tree farm over the weekend and everyone he spoke with was non-supportive of the golf course. He asked Council to take an active position in asking for public input regarding this issue. Further, as a resident, Mr. Poll stated he supports Zoning Map Amendment 18.598.

Debbie Koder - East Lake Drive, is before Council to bring an unsolicited update on the Andris Romain property at East Lake and Fourteen Mile Road. She provided photos that were taken Tuesday, December 3 and they depict whole trees down on the property. She said clean up has begun, but she thinks it is a shame that she is forced to waste her and Council’s time monitoring the actions of the owner. She does not believe it is her responsibility to insure that Mr. Andris complies with City ordinances.

Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, said the ordinances and the charter mean something to her. She thinks it is ludicrous when she hears the Mayor say that the ordinances are just guidelines and not rules because she believes they are the law. She said if they violate the City Charter, it is up to the City attorney to say they are violating the law. She is still waiting for Mr. Watson to say Council violated the law and that they need to change what happened. Ms. Kocan believes this is what their tax money should go toward. Finally, Ms. Kocan stated she supports a special election.

CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor McLallen removed Item 15.

Councilman Schmid removed Item 5.

Councilman Kramer removed Item 10.

CM-96-12-446: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Items 1 - 15 excluding Items 5, 10 and 15 on the Consent Agenda

Nay: None

Mayor McLallen reported all items, with the exception of 5, 10 and 15, have been approved.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Vacation of Erma Street - Action to table at November 4, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting

It is Mayor McLallen’s understanding that City Administration has asked that this matter be deferred because the City staff and consultants’ are still working on some concerns with this property.

Mr. Kriewall reported there is a new proposal to vacate half the street so that they can effectively address some parking and access concerns that the public expressed and for that reason, it will take more time to resolve all of the outstanding issues. Mr. Kriewall asked if Council would continue this action at the second meeting in January?

Larry Kilgore stated the property is the Sherwood Place Office Complex that they plan to develop in phases. Mr. Kilgore reported final site plan phases’ one and two were approved November 6. They designed the property to consist of a 12,000 square foot office facility with residential care facilities moving back from Novi Road. Mr. Kilgore said the request is for a lot split that would separate the front office building from the rear residential care facility so that the office could be developed separately and mortgaged or sold. The assessor initially denied the request and they are before Council to appeal that decision. Mr. Kilgore further advised that the request would not change the site plan or the access.

Mayor McLallen asked if the insurance issue was adequately addressed? Mr. Watson replied the basis for Mr. Lemmon’s denial was that they have not submitted a current title insurance commitment. Mr. Watson believes the applicant does not have a problem with supplying that, but the only thing they are looking for a variance from is the three to one ratio.

Mayor McLallen reported there is a letter from Brandon Rogers supporting the split.

Councilman Schmid asked how did the project get this far without someone suggesting this is an illegal development based upon the ordinance? Mr. Rogers replied when the applicant submitted, he did not bring out this issue and only wanted final site plan approval without the split. He now has a buyer for the front parcel and wants to sell it, but not change the site plan. Mr. Rogers said the Planning Commission did not discuss this issue as a condition.

Councilman Schmid said according to what he reads, a lot should not be any more than three times the width of the lot. Mr. Rogers replied that restriction is in the Subdivision of Land, Chapter 32. Councilman Schmid asked if this ordinance affects this piece of property? Mr. Rogers replied he thinks it does. Mr. Rogers added he has conferred with Mr. Watson and they concluded that they exceed the three to one depth ratio. Councilman Schmid asked why Mr. Rogers supported this? Mr. Rogers replied he supports it at this point which is after they approved the final site plan and they are now appealing it. It does not change the site plan, the road system, the parking, the architecture or the landscaping. It is only a matter of different ownership and sidwell numbers on paper.

Councilman Schmid asked why do they have such an ordinance? Mr. Rogers replied they added it for residential so they do not get bowling alley lots that may be a hundred feet wide and a half mile deep. In this case, half the site is regulated woodlands and the depth of 1,333 feet goes to the far easterly edge of the dark green area. If they went only to where they show the development plan, it would be the better part of 900 feet and would exceed the frontage that they have on the residual parcel of 60 feet. The three to one ratio would allow them to go back 180 feet.

Councilman Schmid asked what changed because of the owner’s request to sell the property? Mr. Watson replied the applicant’s wish to divide property or parcel it off triggered the lot split regulations. Mr. Watson added the applicant submitted a site plan that showed the parcel being developed under one ownership.

Councilman Schmid said this would then be developing into what they know as flag lots. Mr. Watson said they could call it a flag lot. A flag lot to him would be one that is narrow, near the road and wider in the rear and this would fit that description. Further, there are regulations in the ordinance directed toward flag lots and those particular provisions do not actually apply to this situation, but the three to one ratio does.

Councilman Schmid asked if the three to one ratio would apply to this if it were only one owner. Mr. Watson replied it would apply whether it is one owner or more than one owner. When they split it to create a parcel that has that ratio, they run into that problem. Councilman Schmid asked if they didn’t split it, would it apply? Mr. Watson replied that it may be that the dimensions of the original parcel were beyond the three to one ratio, but they created the original parcel long before that regulation was in effect.

Councilman Schmid asked if the original parcel had the same dimensions that it has today and is under one ownership, does the ordinance apply? Mr. Watson replied the three to one ordinance only comes into effect when they actually create a new parcel or affect a division of land. Once they divide it, they try to parcel it off and that is when they apply it.

Councilman Schmid asked if the original owner were to develop it himself and maintain the ownership, would it apply? Mr. Watson replied that he would have no problem. Mr. Watson explained the purpose of the ordinance is that they do not want to encourage a lot of divisions of land without going through the subdividing process. Councilman Schmid said an applicant could beat the system by coming in after the fact.

Councilman Schmid asked if it is good planning to have only one driveway accessing this property from Novi Road? Mr. Rogers replied to reduce the number of curb cuts on Novi Road is good planning. Secondly, the engineering, the design and realignment at midpoint in the planning was strongly recommended by Rod Arroyo.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about stacking when trying to access Novi Road. Mr. Arroyo said as the projects on the west side of Novi Road have come in there have been considerable efforts to encourage the private property owners to provide for internal shared access between them. Although the City has made many suggestions to try to make that happen, there has not been the cooperation that they might have hoped for to make some of those connections happen and is one main reason they do not see much in the way of internal connections. Further, there were some developments that have been there a little bit longer than others and there are some older parcel divisions before some current ordinance restrictions. For example, this property has fairly narrow frontage on Novi Road. They have addressed the issue of access the best way it can and as he recalls in terms of secondary access for commercial buildings, there is only one point of access required unless the fire department makes a determination that they feel two points of access is required. Mr. Arroyo believes that is how the ordinance reads and he does not believe the fire department made that determination when they reviewed the plan.

Councilman Schmid asked if these are going to be senior citizen housing? Mr. Arroyo said it is and there is also some office development, as well as senior type housing.

Councilman Schmid said the more important issue is the one access to this major residential area without considering the office. Mr. Arroyo replied with the environmental restrictions at the back half of the site, the site does not go as deep as it might. Further, once they enter the site, it immediately goes into a parking area which will provide some opportunities if they can get onto the site to go around some blockages that might occur internally. In other words, the site design allows some flexibility and is the best they can hope for considering the site constraints that already exist.

Councilman Mitzel asked if a site condo achieves the same purpose? Mr. Watson replied they could accomplish what they want to with a site condominium and it would not require a lot split.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the proposed road was a public road would it violate the lot split? Mr. Watson replied there still may be a problem with the three to one ratio.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that this is an approved site plan and it is the ownership that is in question. Further, had the petitioner presented this as a site condominium, they could have built each of the five buildings separately without doing this.

CM-96-12-448: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny a lot split of Parcel 22-27-200-034, Sherwood Place

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Clark recognizes the hardship, but he believes it is self created. Further, it is well known what Council’s view is on requests for lot splits. Councilman Clark added although it is called by another name, it still creates a situation where they have something comparable to a flag lot.

Councilman Kramer asked if they have platted the property? Mr. Watson replied they do not plat it as lots, but it is a single parcel of land with an approved site plan. Councilman Kramer asked if it would be reasonable for the applicant to proceed as a site condominium as a way of supporting the sale of individual buildings? Mr. Watson said if they deny the applicant’s request, they could proceed in that manner.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is not clear about where the applicant is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Watson replied the portion the applicant would like to parcel off is Phase I and the question that remains is the depth to width ratio. They measure the width from the setback line close to the road where there is a limited width. The depth is far more than three times the width. Consequently, it is the remainder parcel other than Phase I that has the depth to width problem.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said it would then have nothing to do with flag lots. Mr. Watson replied it is something akin to flag lots.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to deny the request for a lot split of Parcel 22-27-200-034 on the basis of noncompliance with the depth to width ratio.

Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Kolis is constructing a swimming pool in his rear yard. The Board of Review offered two alternatives for fencing placement and denied intrusion into the woodlands to which the petitioner has not agreed.

Mr. Kolis explained he hired a contractor to develop a plan. Mr. Kolis stated he has a plan with an approved permit and this issue arose when he wanted to verify that the fence met the most current codes. Mr. Kolis added that the pool was already constructed.

Mayor McLallen said the issue is that they cannot stay completely out of the woodlands by placing the fence closer to the swimming pool and the deck. Mr. Kolis’ concern is that it lessens the living space and would like to move the fence further back which would then encroach on the woodlands. The Board of Review’s argument is that it could potentially damage trees that are already stressed from construction and would entail the removal of underbrush and emerging trees.

Mr. Kolis stated he does not agree with the removal of the underbrush because there is none. He said he asked at the Board of Review meeting whether they had been at the construction site recently and the response was no. Further, he believes the City was assuming there would be removal of underbrush based on the fact that there should be brush there.

Mayor McLallen asked if the placement of the fence would be stressful to the trees? Mr. Kolis replied that is possible.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the applicant planned to leave everything between the pool and the fence in its natural condition? Mr. Kolis replied there seems to be a discrepancy between the plan and the actual construction. Mr. Kolis explained they removed all the brush up to the silt fence. Councilman Mitzel asked if the fence will be located in the same location as the silt fence? Mr. Kolis replied it is close to it.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the woodland’s ordinance prohibits a fence running through a woodland area if they can install it in a way that does not damage or remove the trees? Mr. Pargoff replied they allow it as long as the Woodlands Review Board or Council approves it. Mr. Pargoff added although he does not believe there are specific procedures to follow to construct the fence, it does allow a fence. Councilman Mitzel asked if a woodland’s permit is required to construct a fence in any woodland’s area? Mr. Pargoff replied they would have to follow the process.

Councilman Mitzel said if they can install the fence so that it does not damage or remove any of the trees, he does not see any reason he cannot place the fence where requested.

CM-96-12-449: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED: To allow the petitioner to place the fence as indicated in the petition subject to the protection of the trees and leaving the remaining woodlands in its natural state

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to allow placement of the fence subject to fact that no damage is done to any trees and all of the understory be left as it currently is.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer asked if the City incurs any liability regarding recommending a fence that can easily be climbed? Mr. Watson does not believe that the City incurs any liability in that respect.

Councilman Clark is concerned about Mr. Saven’s comment about having a fence in the wooded area would negate any safety factors since anyone could climb a tree and get over the fence. It is his understanding that if they construct a pool, there is a legal requirement that they have a fence for safety reasons. Councilman Clark is more concerned about the safety of children than he is about the flora and fauna. Consequently, he will not support this motion.

Councilman Schmid discussed the placement of the fencing with the applicant. He then asked if all the fencing would be placed on the lot line? Mr. Kolis was proposing two sides of the three-sided fence to be on the site line.

Councilman Schmid agrees with Councilmen Mitzel and Clark.

Councilman Mitzel believes that climbing a fence is just as easy as it is to climb a tree and does not see a difference in safety from the standpoint of ease of climbing.

Councilwoman Mutch appreciates the concern about the safety of children, but thinks the parents should take responsibility instead of intruding on the rights of one individual as long as they can install the fence in a way that does not do damage. She agrees they should require a permit.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to allow placement of the fence where the petitioner has requested subject to the fact that it causes no damage to the existing trees and leaves the understory intact.

Councilman Kramer asked how are they going to determine if the fence disturbs the trees? Mayor McLallen replied that is taken care of in the permit process.

4. Approval of PD-3 Option and Preliminary Site Plan - Hagopian World of Rugs, SP 96-35A

Mayor McLallen reported SP 96-35A has received all staff and consultant approvals subject to recommendations within their letters. Further, the Planning Commission sends a positive recommendation and approves the land banking of parking option.

Jon Sarkesian of Jon Sarkesian Architects reported they began working on this project over a year ago with the Taubman Company. Mr. Sarkesian explained it is a difficult site because it drops approximately 30 feet from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. Mr. Sarkesian reported they designed the building with appropriate massing between Gormans and CellularOne. He stated Gormans is approximately 36 feet high and the west elevation of their building is approximately 25 feet above the parking lot grade. They designed the building to cascade down the site. They tried to create a feeling of a converted loft building from the 1920's. They used red and limestone drive it and will have plentiful display windows. The interior will be very open and there will be a two-story open ceiling on the east side with a one story and a mezzanine on the west side.

Mayor McLallen advised the presentation is complete and the petitioner met all of the site plan requirements.

Councilman Schmid asked if the ingress is through the Gorman driveway? Mr. Rogers replied there is a cross easement. He further explained the site will have no curb cut out to Twelve Mile Road. There will be a bike path and they will provide an easement of access. Councilman Schmid asked what will the bike path material be? Mr. Rogers said eight foot bike paths had traditionally been asphalt. Councilman Schmid said he believes they are conducting a study to change all sidewalks and bike paths to concrete and asked the petitioner to address that tonight. Mr. Rogers said there are two easements of access. There is an existing curb cut that comes in and travels around the two story Gorman building. This would provide exiting for them and it would improve the circulation patterns for Gormans that may wish to go back into the mall. The other access point would be a cross easement at AirTouch Cellular. Mr. Rogers also advised that the petitioner needs the land banking. Mr. Rogers explained the plan shows the parking required under the old ordinance. In the packet, there is a document which shows that by using some of the other property, they can meet the retail parking standard.

Councilman Schmid asked if the Gorman drive is a private drive? Mr. Rogers replied it is a condition for final site plan approval.

CM-96-12-450: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: For approval of the PD-3 Option and Preliminary Site Plan for Hagopian World of Rugs, SP 96-35A

Councilman Kramer believes the building size needs to be addressed in the motion. He explained the ordinance requires 50,000 square feet and this building is only 26,790. Councilman Clark accepted the amendment.

Councilman Schmid said it is very likely before they build the building that they will have an ordinance that will require concrete bike paths and sidewalks. Councilman Schmid asked if the petitioner would have a problem with that and he would like to make it a part of the motion. Mr. Sarkesian agreed to the condition of constructing the paths with concrete if necessary.

Councilman Clark added the condition to the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the facility is just a showroom? The applicant replied it will be a cash and carry drop off, as well as the largest showroom to date. They will send the rugs to Oak Park for cleaning.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to grant approval pursuant to the waiver and the sidewalk.

Nay: None

5. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.598 Proposed City-Initiated rezoning of property along Novi Road south of Erma and Linhart from B-3 District to R-4 District or any other appropriate district

Mayor McLallen reported the Planning Commission was not in favor of the rezoning, however the Staff is recommending the rezoning.

Councilman Mitzel believes Mr. Watson advised that a positive recommendation for this rezoning will require five votes. Mayor McLallen replied there is an issue if more than 20% protest it requires a two third vote. Mr. Watson reported the protest is greater than 20% of the area.

Mayor McLallen advised the history of this rezoning is that the City was looking at areas as they changed and this area has been a difficult area because of the road. Now the traffic may lessen because of the recent opening of Decker Road. Another issue is because it is an old community with small lots. Further, the challenge of having commercial and parking within the residential area has also been cause for the city to look at the zoning again.

Councilman Clark said they pointed out to Council that the property sat vacant for a long period. Although there has been discussion about it being developed as commercial, it has not happened until now. He also finds it interesting that those parcels have been paying taxes as if it were residential.

CM-96-12-451: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the rezoning of the subject parcels on Novi Road south of Erma and Linhart from B-3 District to R-4

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer stated in the packet there is documentation about R-4 and very little discussion about RT, yet RT seems to fit some of the various sites and allows R-4 growth as well. Councilman Kramer asked what are the pros and cons of a RT zoning being a little more flexible.

Mr. Rogers advised RT is a two-family district. Mr. Rogers reported that Mr. Arroyo worked closely with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and has included a RT scenario in his report. Mr. Rogers believes it is a reasonable alternative, but he cannot think of any two family dwellings recently approved in the City. Mr. Rogers said this was popular in the 20's, 30's and 40's. Mr. Rogers added it is a reasonable alternative, yet building single family at the R-4 density with 80 foot lots and 10,000 square feet is possible.

Councilman Kramer said there was discussion about lack of a buffer between the existing party store and the property to the south of Erma. He said Council had tabled a proposal to vacate Erma earlier and he asked what is the appropriate use for the vacated land and could it be used to create a buffer? Mr. Rogers replied it could. If they vacate a stub street half usually goes to one side and half to the other. The part store continues to be B-3 and the B-3 would go to the center line of Erma and this rezoning if they approved it, the RT or R-4 zoning would also go to the center line of Erma.

Councilman Kramer believes City bodies need to have some vision and he thinks they can recognize over the last many years they have been working to enhance the quality of life of residential in the lakes area. Because the property has not developed as commercial substantiates its nonviability and it was further reduced by reducing the traffic. Councilman Kramer will support the motion, but he favors a RT zoning.

Councilman Schmid said this is difficult action, but this property has been undeveloped for a long time. The commercial properties that are currently there are difficult to deal with from a parking and traffic standpoint. Therefore, he sees this as impossible to develop this as commercial. Councilman Schmid views it as a safety and welfare issue and supports the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees with Councilman Kramer’s statement about City bodies having a vision and will support the motion. She added that the comment made during Audience Participation about the property owners paying residential taxes is irrelevant to Council’s decision. She suggested to Council that such statements may not be factual.

Councilman Mitzel supports the motion for the reasons stated by Mr. Rogers. He also believes the rezoning will be beneficial to the area and provides improvement to the area surrounding the lakes.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to approve the City initiated rezoning from B-3 to R-4.

Councilman Kramer asked if Council would support a recommendation to the Planning Commission to adjust the Master Plan accordingly as part of the motion or as a recommendation after the motion.

Mr. Rogers replied he recommended that action in his report and Council can request the Planning Commission to reconsider.

Nay: None

Councilman Kramer recommended that the Planning Commission reconsider the revision of the Master Plan to support the zoning change.

6. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.562, property located north and south of Grand River Avenue, west of Beck Road from I-1 District, OS-2 District and OSC District to B-3 and OSC District or any other appropriate district.

Mayor McLallen reported the first issue is to take 42.6 acres from the OSC District to B-3 District at the northwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road. The second is to take 107.6 acres from OS-2 District to OSC District at the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck. Finally, the request is to take 33.6 acres from I-1 District to OSC District on the south side of Grand River Avenue, west of Beck Road. One underlying factor is the attempt to move the Beck Road interchange process forward.

Michael Cervenak, Vice President of Operations for Mission Health reported Providence Hospital has enjoyed nearly two decades of master planned medical service development in Novi. Providence Park represents the third generation medical care campus that they have established since their initiation in 1978. Mr. Cervenak advised a relationship with the City’s leadership has characterized this evolution based on spirit of collaboration and a commitment to achievements of common goals. In March 1993, Providence in partnership with the City’s governmental and business leaders began a course of action which would be to the ultimate replacement of the inferior Beck Road interchange which currently exists as part of the I-96 freeway system. The group’s efforts have brought replacement of Interchange 160 closer to reality. Providence is seeking rezoning of its Providence Park campus to enable continued proper development of their site master plan. Furthermore, this rezoning application represents a critical lynch pin in ensuring that the Michigan Department of Transportation is virtually guaranteed access to an affordable right of way required to enable replacement of the I-96 and Beck Road interchange.

Joseph Galvin described the project and advised Providence does not propose to change the R-3 zoning. This request is to allow for the proposed construction of the interchange and to allow Providence to provide the land necessary to accommodate that interchange at a price which is acceptable to the City. Furthermore, the rezoning is also a request to leave land which is developable for the 150,000 square feet of commercial use under the OSC classifications. Mr. Galvin then explained the proposed request as it is outlined in the packet information. Mr. Galvin concluded by stating this is the most significant action City Council can take to make this interchange a reality.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the main factor they should consider for this rezoning is basically property acquisition? Mr. Galvin replied it is only "a" main factor and the main factor is that this City has a plan for the development of this area. In order to implement the planning process, the single most important piece of it is to have this interchange built.

Councilman Mitzel said according to the packet material and what Mr. Galvin has just stated, the fundamental issue is the valuation question on the north parcel. Mr. Galvin believes that is the case. Councilman Mitzel is surprised to hear that argument because typically, Council considers what is best for land use and does not consider property value in zoning cases.

Mr. Galvin restated the configuration of Providence’s plan and the plan for the construction of the interchange. Mr. Galvin explained in order to make it possible for Providence to negotiate a better price with the City, it would seem to place the residual value on the southern portion with the same uses that were otherwise permissible is not a big jump from a planning perspective. He believes this is the best way to implement the master plan.

Councilman Mitzel asked for guidance from the City’s attorney on how much weight should be given to that argument for this rezoning? Mr. Watson believes Council should make their rezoning decision based upon land use considerations and planning functions and not upon land valuation or upon the possibility that the City or State may acquire the property as a result of the rezoning.

Brandon Rogers reported they explored many options for constructing an interchange that would benefit the entire west side of the city. One option was without rezoning and they explored whether they could modify the phasing requirements so there could be more commercial in Phase I than what it could support. Mr. Rogers reminded Council that each phase must stand on its own and in any given phase the commercial element cannot exceed 20% of the land area of that particular phase. Mr. Rogers referred to his November 25 report which supports the two rezonings on the south side of Grand River. He stated he was never in favor of the strip of industrial next to the Edison lines. Mr. Rogers is concerned that the B-3 request opens it up to a number of incongruous uses. Mr. Rogers said if they rezone to B-3, there are certain uses they would not want perched on the corner. Mr. Rogers recommends B-3 zoning only if some mechanism could be found to limit certain intrusive uses such as a gas station or a car wash. They looked at conditional zoning, covenants or the City taking ownership of some of the property so they could participate in the enforcement of the covenants. The applicant has already written an extensive letter that they will enter into agreements acceptable to the City’s attorney and Council which Mr. Rogers believes it is a possible solution. Mr. Rogers added there was discussion by some Planning Commissioners about zoning it Town Center District. Mr. Rogers noted he has a comparative listing of what the difference is between B-3 and Town Center. In all the discussions over the last thirteen years, the Town Center is located in a specific area and now, everything south of Grand River is being talked about as TC-1 as of a more Main Street type districting. The Planning Commission did recommend some alternatives such as B-3, TC or any other acceptable zoning classification, but those options rest with Council.

Councilman Mitzel asked if TC zoning would accomplish what Providence is asking for as a planning tool? Mr. Rogers replied the TC ordinance provides an extraordinary amenity package to create a cohesiveness. Mr. Rogers added a TC zoning would prohibit all those uses he is concerned about in a B-3 zoning, but he does not want to see the TC District diluted.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the Vistas of Novi concept at Thirteen Mile and Decker dilutes the TC District and from a planning concept would there be anything wrong with something similar at Beck and Grand River? Mr. Rogers said they could review it and the same thing could be said for the Maples. Councilman Mitzel stated they brought this up as a way to address the concerns about B-3 which they could take care of with an existing zoning district as opposed to conditional zoning since there is no PUD ordinance that they could implement for commercial or office use in this area. Mr. Rogers added they could leave the zoning OSC, but they would have to address the phasing problems which he raised earlier. Councilman Mitzel said Council or the ZBA could address that.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they could leave the southern portion as OS-1 and add a PD-2 Option? Mr. Rogers replied that is an option and would allow the five story relationship in certain commercial development. Mr. Rogers believes they would prefer uniform zoning, but it still is a possibility.

Councilman Mitzel asked which zoning offers the better mechanism, OS-1 with the PD-2 or the OSC? Mr. Rogers replied the flexibility and review process of OSC is superior to OS-1, PD-2 because the PD-2 requires extra steps. It requires a Public Hearing and review by Council of a preliminary and final site plan after the Planning Commission has reviewed both. Mr. Rogers questions its efficiency.

Councilman Schmid has no problem with the south side request, but he is concerned with the north side request. Councilman Schmid is surprised that Administration, the Planning Department and Mr. Galvin proposed that this zoning be approved because of a financial benefit to Providence and to the City. Councilman Schmid will not consider this factor in his decision.

Councilman Schmid asked whether the interchange is a Federal or a State project? Mr. Kriewall replied it is a Federal Highway project. Councilman Schmid asked if there will then be an interchange in Novi and Wixom at Beck Road regardless whether Providence is there, City of Novi is there or whatever is there? Mr. Kriewall said it is currently in a planning stage and should be completed in five years.

Councilman Schmid asked who purchases the land for state and federal highways? Mr. Kriewall replied the Federal Highway Administration will eventually purchase the property. Councilman Schmid asked if they will then have to pay premium dollars because this land is zoned B-3? Mr. Kriewall explained there are some local share implications. In other words, because of Novi’s population the City must participate at the local level in funding this interchange project. Further, the City was attempting all along to have them plan around what would be the obvious take for the expressway loop. When they put that into the perspective of the historical development of the project and Mr. Galvin’s earlier explanation, they could actually end up with this equivalent amount of commercial development on the site under the OSC zoning. In other words, if they are to come out of this whole, the exchange of OSC to B-3 zoning does not provide any more commercial zoning on that site than they would allow them under the OSC zoning. The only thing it eliminates is some potential office use which would have to come first under the current OSC zoning. Financially, that does not make much sense for Providence from a development standpoint. Mr. Kriewall further explained there is no incentive for Providence to guard this property for the interchange. Providence could develop it tomorrow and there is no way for MDOT to stop them or for the City to stop them. They could build some office projects right where they would plan the interchange and they could come back and do the equivalent amount of commercial zoning under the OSC zoning. Mr. Kriewall said the City is not giving up anything other than some office development square footage in exchange for some freeway interchange right of way which could be part of their local match for the eventual project.

Councilman Schmid asked if Providence is going to give the City the land who will then give it to the Federal government as part of the City’s payment? Mr. Kriewall replied that is correct. Councilman Schmid believes this should not be considered when they consider rezoning.

Councilman Schmid read what type of development they can construct under OSC from Mr. Rogers’ letter and asked Mr. Rogers to explain how they can stop the developer from constructing a big box. Mr. Rogers replied it would be a special land use and a public hearing held by the Planning Commission, but added Councilman Schmid is technically right in that they could construct a big box of something more than 100,000 square feet. Councilman Schmid has a problem with that and believes the OS-1, PD-2 Option would help control that. Mr. Rogers corrected himself by stating that they permit 150,000 only for planned commercial centers which they define as two or more retail businesses. Therefore, they could not have a single entity.

Councilman Schmid read the uses listed in Mr. Rogers letter and stated basically the applicant could construct a large commercial use with a restaurant and the rest of the commercial would have to be within the office building. He further stated that under B-3, they could construct whatever they want understanding that the City does not want gas stations, etc. Councilman Schmid asked if they could construct whatever they wanted under TC zoning? Mr. Rogers reiterated the uses that they would not allow under TC.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the difference in controls between a TC and an OSC? Mr. Rogers replied that a TC District requires that any project greater than five acres come before Council. It further requires an amenity package and must have an internal and perimeter sidewalk system. The B-3 is a general business district which would be incompatible with pedestrian movement and is generally set apart from the center of town.

Councilman Schmid asked why does the applicant need all those things that a B-3 permits? Mr. Galvin asked why does Councilman Schmid suspect that Providence wants to construct those things? To the contrary, Mr. Galvin stated Providence has as big of a stake in the City as any person who owns a home in Novi. They want Novi to prosper as much as any resident and Providence supports the City’s plan for this area. Mr. Galvin said they are asking that Providence make a bargain sale of a portion of their property which they can do if it does not get crippled because Providence has responsibilities as an entity to itself and to those who run it. Therefore, the City and Providence, who are two large stake holders in the City’s future say, put Providence in precisely the same position it is in today by zoning this B-3. Mr. Galvin firmly stated this City ought to trust Providence to go forward and do what they say they are going to do.

Councilman Schmid responded they should not allow Providence whatever zoning they want just because they are high taxpayers. Councilman Schmid reminded Mr. Galvin that Providence does not want to remain in the same position, but that they want to get a much more intense zoning in B-3 than the current OSC zoning will allow.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the benefit of the B-3 zoning being proposed? Mr. Rogers replied the residual property would constrict the depth of the property to a degree off Grand River. They could leave it as OSC, but this zoning has caused this property to remain vacant ten or more years because there is not an apparent demand for signature office buildings at this location. Mr. Rogers explained this is an opportunity for a district that has potential. Mr. Rogers believes the site will have the same attractive ambience that Providence has on the south side. Mr. Rogers also believes B-3 has some merit on a land use basis and his report states if they affected this zoning, the Master Plan should be revisited because it is now master planned for office.

Councilman Schmid supports the south side rezoning and he can support the OSC zoning on the north side, but he cannot support the B-3 zoning west of Beck Road.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Arroyo to discuss the details of the interchange project? Mr. Arroyo responded whenever an interchange project moves forward there is a funding responsibility that comes from the federal level and from a local level. Further, there is a formula that the federal government will impose through the state on the city. How they obtain that money or value at a local level is not important in terms of how the government looks at it and they are just looking at the overall contribution. If they donate property that the government would have to acquire and it becomes part of the local match, then that is savings on part of the contribution. Any contribution made to the interchange project is not a concern to the federal government, they just need that value contributed to make the project work and meet their regulations. The City needs to make their contribution in the most economical and efficient way they can. Further, if they zone the property at a greater value, then the government must pay for it or it can be part of the local match. Mr. Arroyo advised the zoning does matter because it impacts property value.

Councilman Kramer stated if they agree to OSC in the south, they also open themselves up to 20% commercial and 150,000 square feet. Therefore, he does not favor the proposed OSC zoning and favors OS-1 with PD-2 although the process is more difficult.

To the north, Councilman Kramer said the B-3 that they seek to build would have been 20% of the total OSC site which sounds reasonable. However, if they look at what remains, it is highly intensive B-3 with the exemption of the property for the interchange. Councilman Kramer does not believe they have an appropriate solution for the northern property. Councilman Kramer believes they need to look at other potential zonings for the property for an appropriate land use.

Councilman Clark asked if Providence has a Certificate of Need pending in Lansing? Mr. Cervenak replied there has been a Certificate of Need pending for several years for its Phase II Master Plan which is for the inpatient capacity transfer from Southfield to Novi. He further explained the Certificate of Need is under litigation and they are awaiting a decision from the Ingham County Circuit Court.

Councilman Clark said if they are granted the certificate, would the full service facility be located in the southern portion? Mr. Cervenak replied that is correct.

Councilman Mitzel said in consideration of Councilman Kramer’s comments, could Council rezone it to OS-1, PD-2 Option without a PD-2 designation on the Master Plan at this time? Mr. Watson replied it would have to be designated on the Master Plan which would necessitate an amendment to the Master Plan by the Planning Commission. Council could conduct a rezoning, but the Master Plan would have to follow.

Mr. Galvin said there is a Providence plan for the south campus which includes the hospital with a number of other health care related facilities and this would require their own commercial uses such as a pharmacy. Further, there is a need for the Providence plan to be implemented to have the OSC on the south end. Mr. Galvin does not want the notion that this is for the purpose for constructing another shopping center.

Councilman Kramer said the wording in the OSC ordinance supports retail within existing buildings, but Section 1202, paragraph 2 indicates retail commercial business uses other than restaurants are to be contained within the planned commercial shopping center. Further, the planned commercial shopping center shall not exceed 150,000 square feet and comprise more than 20% which requires that they gather it all together and call it a shopping center even if it is medical. Councilman Kramer believes they can accomplish the same thing under PD. Mr. Galvin reminded Councilman Kramer they can accomplish it under PD, but with a greater level of difficulty and much less flexibility. He further thinks this is an important issue before Council and believes that Providence is going to move forward to develop the south campus and north property in the same manner as they have already developed.

Mayor McLallen said there is a concern about commercial uses on both sides of Grand River within OSC and B-3. She asked if deed restrictions and covenants would be an effective means to address this concern? Mr. Watson said deed restrictions are a way to limit the use of property beyond the limitations contained in the zoning ordinance. The issue raised during Brandon’s initial review was, although he thought B-3 was a possibility, he could not agree with certain uses and restrictive covenants are a way to limit those uses. Their recommendation to the Planning Commission when they have posed this issue is that the City only rely on that as an additional control if the City is actually going to end up with property from the parent parcel. Further, if something like that is going to be proposed, only Providence can actually propose what it wants to do in that regard and bring it before Council. However, they cannot know if it is going to work unless they know the specifics.

Mayor McLallen asked where does this fit into the process because Council is not yet privy to Providence’s plans? Mr. Watson said it is not just that they have a plan somewhere, but his point is that if restrictive covenants are going to be used, their recommendation is that it only be done if there is some sort of land transaction involved by which the City would be acquiring property. If there is a plan specific to that, Council can evaluate that. Further, for the City to enforce restrictive covenants, the City should have some dominant stake. The reason they suggest that is because as an owner of the part of the property, the City would be able to enforce the covenants. Mr. Watson explained the City is not a stake holder in a private development, but rather they would use the ownership as a tool for enforcement. Mr. Watson added that Providence has put nothing forward in that regard. Mr. Watson again suggested that the City retain a portion of the property that passes through its hands.

Councilman Mitzel asked what other tools would be possible? Mr. Watson replied they could offer a conditional rezoning, but he does not believe this is the kind of circumstance where they could suggest that. Councilman Mitzel said the one mechanism is to be a land owner within the area that they rezoned to control the covenants and restrictions or have a PUD mechanism to enter into a legal development agreement. Mr. Watson said another alternative is a zoning district that is more restrictive than a B-3 District.

Councilman Mitzel shares Councilman Kramer’s concerns about the southern parcel. He believes until they can determine mechanisms to use the B-3 or implement another type zoning in the northern parcel, it would be premature to rezone it to B-3 at this point.

Mayor McLallen believes this is a matter of how to fulfill the City’s vision and have confidence in a quality city in what is sustainable, has life amenities for its citizens, addresses traffic and environmental issues and allows its nonresidential components to thrive. She believes all of those components are in this project and this applicant has been a long term member of the community. She believes the problem is with the hesitation about the fact that these two particular ordinances are not delivering what they want on such a large land mass. However, they have also mentioned that this zoning is similar to what is currently at Eight Mile and Haggerty Roads. The only other difference they have at Eight Mile is that they have freeway zoning which is no longer a zoning classification. Council needs to visualize what is positive here and realize that this is an employment incentive for the City.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked Mr. Rogers to provide the listing he prepared which compares alternatives. Mr. Rogers replied he would and added they may also want to look at amending the B-2 District.

Councilwoman Mutch stated as the community developed, there have been areas that have developed as centers on their own. She sited the Civic Center as an example of more than just a governmental center, educational center or a recreational center. She believes there is nothing wrong in having other areas develop with a focus that is different and sets it apart as a place to go. She believes the more appropriate control Council can have, the easier it will be for the City to attract other businesses. Consequently, she believes the benefits derived from TC zoning do not change just because the location changes and can be appreciated in other areas besides the center of town.

Mayor ProTem Crawford disagrees with Councilwoman Mutch’s statement about the TC zoning. He believes the intent was to zone the area of Novi Road and Grand River with all its restrictions and amenities put in the ordinance. He does not believe TC zoning fits the Grand River/Beck Road area and he asked that they not consider TC zoning over the next forty five days. Further, he believes the plan is interesting and he could support it with some modifications. He further believes the B-2 Option may be the answer to accomplish the goal. He also concurs that Providence has been a good citizen of the community for a long time and he has no reason not to trust them. He asked Council to work with them on the project and not be as restrictive as they tried to be tonight. He also concurs with the Mayor’s comments on vision for the community.

Councilman Schmid said trust has nothing to do with zoning and agrees that Providence is a great institution. He envisioned the entire area in the same quality that the Providence Hospital is.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to postpone this issue for forty-five days so all participants may seek alternatives based on this evening’s discussion.

Nay: None

Councilman Schmid asked Administration to bring back the alternatives to the highway proposals that they have brought forward. Mr. Kriewall advised they are currently posted on the wall, but he will bring them back.

James Korte - Shawood Lake, thanked everyone for the Novi Road residential rezoning. In addition, if Item 15 on the Consent Agenda for the Fire Department Sale was purchased with monies that were voted on, then he believes the proceeds should go back to where they came from.

Andrew Mutch - 24541 Hampton Court, said the reason he presented the TC proposal was because he believed it was a win win proposition. It seemed to address all of Providence’s concerns and give the City the guarantees it needs. Mr. Mutch looks at this intersection as a gateway to Novi. He believes they should present the best possible face and that Providence has made a great start. There are a lot of great ideas in the TC zoning and thinks it would be a great addition. This area should have the amenities provided in the TC zoning and will serve as the best tool to make this a premiere development.

BREAK at 11:16 p.m.

Meeting reconvened at 11:29 p.m.

CM-96-12-453: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED: To extend meeting one half hour

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Mitzel brought forward this proposal. Further, LARA members have supported this and he would now like to present it to Council.

Councilman Mitzel described a minute long video taken on the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Councilman Mitzel advised the video illustrates the condition of the eight and a half acres on the City lake property. Although the mowing has improved, there are still problems with graffiti on the road beds and he would propose that they clean it up by pulling them out and removing the broken retaining wall. He suggested that they regrass and add a small gravel walkway on the lake that connects with the bike path. He further suggested that they add a couple of picnic tables and benches. Councilman Mitzel stated there should be no parking area and they should not add anything that would eventually hinder future uses. The whole idea is to clean it up in a way that would allow any future use to be used there. He asked if Council would take the action to have plans prepared with a final cost estimate and provide whatever bid packages would be required to remove the road beds. He asked that this matter be brought back before Council at the February 10, 1997 meeting so that the site can be ready for summer. When Councilman Mitzel brought this before the Lake Property Committee, it was more elaborate. They have adjusted the plan to remove a parking area which eliminated $20,000 in additional costs and reduced safety hazards. Councilman Mitzel suggested there would be possible funding sources come from the Mid-decade Census Funds or perhaps there are funds in the City’s contingencies to accomplish this. Councilman Mitzel also believes the City needs to post a sign which prohibits motorized vehicles, boat launching, bonfires, alcohol consumption, etc. He further believes they should post a similar sign at the tree farm.

CM-96-12-454: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the City Administration to prepare a finalized cost estimate, construction drawings and bid documents for action at the February 10, 1997 City Council meeting

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel reported that the City attorney advised that because it just involves the removal of the road beds, that it would not require a site plan. It would however, require a soil erosion permit and site improvement process. He advised he would be willing to serve as a liaison between Council and the administrative staff that they assigned this responsibility. Further, Councilman Mitzel advised Kent Poll would be willing to serve as a liaison for LARA and the City.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what role will the Lake Study Committee play since it sunsets at the end of December? Councilman Mitzel is uncertain, but knows that Mr. Kriewall deferred Council action on their final report regarding the banquet facility until February 1997.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the committee will still be able to provide individual input after the sunset date? Mayor McLallen replied they would.

Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that as a member, they could vote to extend the committee’s charge by action of this Council. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to clean up the site, but he also does not want to encourage use because of the lack of security there. He is concerned about the cost involved in removing the road beds. He would like to see some alternatives when administration comes back with their report. He believes the total cost will be $40,000-$60,000. Further, it was suggested if they can come up with that kind of money it might better be used in other areas of park development that were lacking.

Councilman Kramer asked if DPW can help in the work? He further suggested that perhaps scouting projects could complete some of the work or that Parks and Recreation may also assist.

Councilman Mitzel said it is a possibility, but the actual removal of the concrete would be difficult.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the committee has previously discussed whether they want to extend their charter? Mayor ProTem Crawford said they had not discussed extending their charter and does not see any harm in doing so.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is to accept Councilman Mitzel’s proposal to send this matter to Administration for some costing estimates and to bring it back to the February 10, 1997 meeting.

Nay: None

CM-96-12-455: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the revised Design and Construction Standards Ordinance No. 96-124 as presented - Second Reading

Nay: None

9. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting - Property Acquisition, Union Negotiations and Pending Litigation

CM-96-12-456: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting - Property Acquisition, Union Negotiations and Pending Litigation

Nay: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Jim Korte - Shawood Lake, reported the City should follow its own ordinances and follow up on the clean up the properties no matter what the cost. He also asked the City to look at the unsafe curb cut being made at Charlotte, Duana and the berm to Austin to skirt the light. He further reported that one resident has removed a city fence to access his own back yard.

Debbie Bundoff - Novi/Twelve Mile Road, said she understood that there would only be access to the ring road from the pods that surround it in regard to Matters for Council Action, Item 4. She believes it is unfortunate that they approved a plan with access to the major roads because it will negatively impact the traffic in that area. Ms. Bundoff’s second issue is with Item 15 on the Consent Agenda. She believes since it was purchased with bond money, that the proceeds should go back into paying off the fire bonds.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mayor McLallen advised the Ordinance Review Committee meets tomorrow.

Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that the Cable Commission will be cable cast tomorrow from the Novi Chamber at 7:00 p.m.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

1. League of Cities Annual Conference Update

Mayor McLallen reported due to the late hour she included an update in the packet and asked if any other members would like to add anything. She advised the conference was extremely productive and they hope to convert the information to usable projects in Novi.

2. Support for Community Coalition for the Youth

Mayor McLallen made this request to Council for a Community Coalition for the Youth that is forming. The Mayor advised there was a meeting held at the Police Department approximately three weeks ago initiated with the PTO Presidents, the School Administration, herself, the Homeowner’s Association, representatives of the Ministerial Association, Novi Youth Assistance and the medical community trying to identify all the resources for support of youth in the community. The Mayor asked Council to allow her to prepare a resolution that would say the Council is very supportive of this initiative. They are initially exploring some state grants and she advised they found other sources at the San Antonio conference that could support this. Mayor McLallen advised there was Council consensus to bring forth a resolution at the next meeting.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall reported that Plante & Moran, the City’s auditors would like to provide Council with a financial briefing in early January to provide a more meaningful dialog and budget overview program in contrast to their typical visit to present the fiscal audit. Mr. Kriewall suggested Saturday, January 11, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. until noon or Monday, January 6, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.

CM-06-12-457: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Special Meeting for Monday, January 6, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of a financial presentation given by Plante & Moran

Nay: None

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kriewall to continue to follow up on the clean up of the Andris’ property and the curb cut that was just addressed. Mr. Kriewall replied he would.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS

Mr. Watson reminded Council that they asked the City’s attorney to commence an appeal in the Kitchen case which arose out of the Interlock project. He then advised the Planning Commission has approved another project for the same site. Further, the Interlock people have entered into an arrangement whereby they are disposing the property and the new owner has obtained approval. Mr. Watson said as a result, they stipulated to dismiss any of the appeals in the case and are concluded at this point.

CONSENT AGENDA

5. Approval of Ordinance No. 96-18 (OST Ordinance) - II Reading

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to clarify the verbiage which states, "the building or part of a building at which primary form of access is at least 75% of individual rooms is through a common entrance or entrances" by asking if that means outside entrances similar to a motel? Mr. Rogers replied it means it is not a type of motel that has an outside balcony for entry, but instead it would have an interior hallway. Further, it is primarily for office buildings, but not solely for them and there would require substantial office area present.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there could be extensive manufacturing or is it designed for research and development with ancillary manufacturing? Mr. Rogers stated the principal uses permitted on Page 3 are manufacturing, warehousing and the requirement of an office relationship. Councilman Schmid stated Part A permits extensive manufacturing as long as there is a research and development adjunct on the same site. Mr. Rogers disagrees because the primary uses as listed on Page 2 (research, testing and design) would have to first be demonstrated. Mr. Rogers believes if someone comes in with manufacturing, it would be evident on the site plan.

Mr. Watson said they stated in Part B that the warehousing and storage has to be accessory to one of those principal uses. Mr. Watson advised that the language, "an accessory use" should be inserted into Part 4.a on Page 3 instead of "adjunct."

Councilman Schmid is also concerned about Part C which states, "such uses shall be permitted only as part of the mixed use building development in which no less than 10% of the combined floor area or building of buildings within the development are utilized for office and/or laboratories." His impression was that at least 10% of the complex had to be used for office, but it now includes laboratory and it could then strictly become manufacturing. Mr. Rogers said this is a minor per cent and that there is a gray area between professional office space where there are laboratory people and strictly a clerical office. Mr. Rogers sited Rockwell International in Troy as an example which is a high tech, research and development agency. Councilman Schmid said this is not a big issue.

Nay: None

10. Approval of Agreement between the City of Novi and the Road Commission for Oakland County to install SCATS and Autoscope at the intersections of Main Street/Novi Road and Market Street/Grand River Avenue

Councilman Kramer believes the paperwork does not support the expenditure. Haim Schlick advised a page is missing from the documentation.

CM-96-12-459: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve agreement between the City of Novi and the Road Commission for Oakland County to install SCATS and Autoscope at the intersections of Main Street/Novi Road and Market Street/Grand River Avenue based on the insertion of the missing page

Nay: None

15. Approval of Sale of City Property - Nine Mile & Beck/Fire Station No. 5

Mayor McLallen believes the proceeds from this sale should go into the Fire Fund and not the General Fund.

CM-96-12-460: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Sale of City Property - Nine Mile & Beck/Fire Station No. 5 which at time that the proceeds go directly into the fund which is designated for the fire bond money

Nay: None

COMMUNICATIONS

10. Letter from Mark Zaremski to City Council, Re: Opposition to Golf Course at the North Novi Park

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P.M.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes